From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 989191F670 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 23:27:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S244796AbiBWX13 (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Feb 2022 18:27:29 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:49936 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235909AbiBWX12 (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Feb 2022 18:27:28 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (pb-smtp20.pobox.com [173.228.157.52]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2BA665F5 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 15:26:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAD8B18C020; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 18:26:57 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=ICVkDrlbdILW5fI2QPPPtbnSe75TgrOTpFGhwu aIT9A=; b=CWlzS3ZyG7gwJUgAPBsWSG/npzsmDB43kV5DntL0ur789B43NyRDtz kLGd9pVkuCdhDQn+nilkJGKWKA2t6iOYho3hCFBBy2HVhcmOYEYTrNRS6PGW8dLV RBUpONJSsUAICeZr2EWUP+99xLMGLOCLTYUOOqx+nXoCq2Zl7c5zk= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3D9218C01F; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 18:26:57 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.82.80.254]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2740718C01E; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 18:26:55 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Taylor Blau Cc: Matt Cooper via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, derrickstolee@github.com, Matt Cooper Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] t5302: confirm that large packs mention limit References: <43990408a10d65058d872f13ea9619e85de7081d.1645632193.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 15:26:54 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Taylor Blau's message of "Wed, 23 Feb 2022 12:22:56 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 168152E2-9500-11EC-B5C1-C85A9F429DF0-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Taylor Blau writes: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 04:03:13PM +0000, Matt Cooper via GitGitGadget wrote: >> From: Matt Cooper >> >> When a pack can't be processed because it's too large, we report the >> exact nature of the breach. This test ensures that the error message has >> a human-readable size included. >> >> Signed-off-by: Matt Cooper >> Helped-by: Taylor Blau >> Helped-by: Derrick Stolee > > Ah, one small note here: typically we try to keep commit trailers in > reverse-chronological order, with the most recent thing at the bottom. > That doesn't really matter for the Helped-by's, but keeping your s-o-b > at the bottom indicates that you signed off on the result of your patch > after Stolee and I gave some suggestions. It is very much appreciated to point these things out. > It's not a huge deal, and I'm sure we have plenty of examples of > slightly out-of-order commit trailers throughout our history. Personally > I don't consider it worth rerolling, but perhaps something to keep in > mind for future contributions :-). People need to understand that each such contributor robs maintainer bandwidth by not rerolling. >> +test_expect_success 'too-large packs report the breach' ' >> + pack=$(git pack-objects --all pack > + sz="$(test_file_size pack-$pack.pack)" && >> + test "$sz" -gt 20 && >> + test_must_fail git index-pack --max-input-size=20 pack-$pack.pack 2>err && >> + grep "maximum allowed size (20 bytes)" err >> +' This test looks OK to me. Shouldn't it be squashed into the previous patch? After all, it is a test for the new behaviour introduced by the previous step, right? Thanks.